Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27965868›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2016

The feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a structured physical activity intervention for people diagnosed with colorectal cancer: findings from a pilot trial of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) with an embedded qualitative study.

Gill Hubbard, Ronan O'Carroll, Julie Munro, Nanette Mutrie, Sally Haw, Helen Mason, Shaun Treweek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gill HubbardSchool of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Highland Campus, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH UK.
Ronan O'CarrollDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
Julie MunroCentre for Health Science, School of Health Science, University of Stirling, Highland Campus, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH UK.
Nanette MutrieMoray House School of Education, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ UK.
Sally HawSchool of Health Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
Helen MasonHelen Mason, Yunus Centre in Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA UK.
Shaun TreweekShaun Treweek, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK.
University of Stirling · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Department of Health 12/5001/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPilot and feasibility work is conducted to evaluate the operational feasibility and acceptability of the intervention itself and the feasibility and acceptability of a trials' protocol design. The Cardiac Rehabilitation In Bowel cancer (CRIB) study was a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) for post-surgical colorectal cancer patients. A key aim of the pilot trial was to test the feasibility and acceptability of the protocol design.

methodsA pilot RCT with embedded qualitative work was conducted in three sites. Participants were randomly allocated to cardiac rehabilitation or usual care groups. Outcomes used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of key trial parameters were screening, eligibility, consent, randomisation, adverse events, retention, completion, missing data, and intervention adherence rates. Colorectal patients' and clinicians' perceptions and experiences of the main trial procedures were explored by interview.

resultsQuantitative study. Three sites were involved. Screening, eligibility, consent, and retention rates were 79 % (156/198), 67 % (133/198), 31 % (41/133), and 93 % (38/41), respectively. Questionnaire completion rates were 97.5 % (40/41), 75 % (31/41), and 61 % (25/41) at baseline, follow-up 1, and follow-up 2, respectively. Sixty-nine percent (40) of accelerometer datasets were collected from participants; 31 % (20) were removed for not meeting wear-time validation. Qualitative study: Thirty-eight patients and eight clinicians participated. Key themes were benefits for people with colorectal cancer attending cardiac rehabilitation, barriers for people with colorectal cancer attending cardiac rehabilitation, generic versus disease-specific rehabilitation, key concerns about including people with cancer in cardiac rehabilitation, and barriers to involvement in a study about cardiac rehabilitation.

conclusionsThe study highlights where threats to internal and external validity are likely to arise in any future studies of similar structured physical activity interventions for colorectal cancer patients using similar methods being conducted in similar contexts. This study shows that there is likely to be potential recruitment bias and potential imprecision due to sub-optimal completion of outcome measures, missing data, and sub-optimal intervention adherence. Hence, strategies to manage these risks should be developed to stack the odds in favour of conducting successful future trials.

trial registrationISRCTN63510637.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityCardiac rehabilitationColorectal cancerFeasibilityPhysical activityPilot

Identifiers

PMID27965868
PMCPMC5153896
OpenAlexW2508858884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.